Pelosi encourages illegals to buy guns.

Nov 2018
3,739
1,836
Inner Space
#81
I think that was an underhanded insult, so I'll bet any amount of money that once the counter to your opinion is provided, you will be jumping up and down, yelling "I knew it" when this lesson can be found NOWHERE without my name attached to it. That is because it is not the teaching of anyone except yours truly. So, here we go:

1) While the Declaration of Independence is not a statute nor a legal case, it is law. It appears at the head of United States Code which is the official laws of the United States. It has been used at least a hundred times in cases all the way up to the United States Supreme Court. Of this document the United States Supreme ruled:

"The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: 'We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.' While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government." Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79 (1901)

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

Put simply I'm safe to interpret the Constitution consistent with the wording of the Declaration of Independence. If interpreted differently, there is probably going to be a major issue with constitutional consistency.

Let's quote Thomas Jefferson on this point:

"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823


George Washington said:
"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." Farewell Address


Let us talk reason here:

The authority of the United States Supreme Court is listed in the United States Constitution. Article III Section 1 gives the United States Supreme Court judicial power. NO other authority is listed; however, we have seen the United States Supreme Court appoint itself as the supreme branch of government; they have bestowed upon Congress powers that Congress did not have; they have interpreted and then reinterpreted their own decisions.

I'm keeping with the words of the founders AND the separation of powers, it is just plain common horse sense that if one branch of the government, consisting of UNELECTED officials can declare a law to mean one thing today and the polar opposite tomorrow, they have effectively legislated from the bench and have done the very thing the founders warned against. THAT is why the Republic is about to come to an end. I'll give you an example:

In 1973 the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of abortion. Trump is confident that his Court will overturn that decision. AFTER Trump the liberals will take over and then rely on a future court to overturn Trump. With judicial legislation, why are you paying for a House of Representatives and a United States Senate. Washington's admonition could not be more prophetic than it is in our day.

So, IN MY OPINION, I look at the FIRST United States Supreme Court interpretations and follow them. When he High Court tries to legislate from the bench, I judiciously ignore them. If you want to change the Constitution, amend it. Otherwise the Republic collapses.

2) Consistent with what I just told you, the FIRST time a state supreme court interpreted the Second Amendment, they ruled:

"The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State." Nunn v. Georgia. Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

A few years later the supreme court of Texas ruled:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

Shortly thereafter the United States Supreme Court ruled:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)

You see, I'm not cherry picking. The states interpreted the Constitution to mean ONE THING. I'm only quoting the FIRST decisions. The United States Supreme Court, even violating their own ruling, admitted the fact. The Right to keep and bear Arms is NOT dependent upon the Constitution. It predates the Constitution as it is an extension of the Right to Life... the life you say is not protected by law. I think the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified; however, the courts hold it up as law, so you'd better refer to it. It guarantees a right to life (sic.)

3) That you would invoke the ridiculous Heller decision is quite funny. It proves my entire point. Their ruling was:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. "

What??? What??? That flies in the face of what the founders said; it contradicts the FIRST state supreme court cases; it is 180 degrees opposite of what the United States Supreme Court ruled in its FIRST ruling on the subject. Can anybody out there see which direction the country is heading when we ignore the admonitions of the founders? The United States Supreme Court has usurped powers it clearly did not have. How much longer does it go on before they are the only law making body in our former Republic?

If you'd like an in depth education on this, I can provide it. But, wait, you're spouting liberal horse dung. I won't accuse you of anything, but if you come back challenging my education because you disagree, then all this discussion boils down to you is you thinking you're superior because a majority of Americans have not thought this through and will agree with you out of ignorance. Do the courts have the power? Obviously they do. But do they have the real authority? NO. And it is the job of the citizenry to educate themselves and set it right.

Thanks for your response and twisted acknowledgment that the Constitution is not a law or statute or even a regulation. However you do not seem to believe your own admission on that fact. The DOI has a philosophical value, as do the recorded literature of the time. However, it is not law as defined by common terminology, statutory or common law definition.
Secondly, I find it paradoxical that you disparage the power of the supreme court of the land to make judgments about constitutionality and then you try to defend your view of the Second Amendment based upon a court decision by lower and inferior courts making a constitutional judgment.
Thirdly, your expectation that a gun right is unlimited follows, of course, from your unreasonable expectations for ANY right within a social system. There is no absolute right to ANYTHING in a society. It is all modulated by every culture and has been since the earliest human societies. If you want to live on a separate planet, alone, you can claim whatever right you wish and enforce it however you wish.

I am truly curious how you arrived at all this misunderstanding and what institution would educate you in this sort of characterization of American history and jurisprudence. It must be some Federalist Society analog or libertarian think tank.
 
Mar 2018
679
132
Grayson
#82
Thanks for your response and twisted acknowledgment that the Constitution is not a law or statute or even a regulation. However you do not seem to believe your own admission on that fact. The DOI has a philosophical value, as do the recorded literature of the time. However, it is not law as defined by common terminology, statutory or common law definition.
Secondly, I find it paradoxical that you disparage the power of the supreme court of the land to make judgments about constitutionality and then you try to defend your view of the Second Amendment based upon a court decision by lower and inferior courts making a constitutional judgment.
Thirdly, your expectation that a gun right is unlimited follows, of course, from your unreasonable expectations for ANY right within a social system. There is no absolute right to ANYTHING in a society. It is all modulated by every culture and has been since the earliest human societies. If you want to live on a separate planet, alone, you can claim whatever right you wish and enforce it however you wish.

I am truly curious how you arrived at all this misunderstanding and what institution would educate you in this sort of characterization of American history and jurisprudence. It must be some Federalist Society analog or libertarian think tank.
Blatant idiocy on your part is unbecoming of you, Biff. Either you fail to understand OR you presume other posters to be freaking idiots. So, either you are stupid OR you presume your fellow posters are. Contrary to what you wrote, the Constitution IS law.

The Declaration of Independence is law. One book puts it this way:

"The Declaration of Independence was the promise of a representative government; the Constitution was the fulfillment of that promise."

The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of the United States | PenguinRandomHouse.com: Books

One faction refused to sign onto the Constitution because they were afraid of people just like you.

Secondly, I did NOT disparage the United States Supreme Court. You could not point to single, solitary sentence in the entire Constitution that contradicts anything I said. The United States Supreme Court has one job and only job: to interpret the Constitution. They have gone above and beyond that job. They can no more justify their actions than Donald J. Chump can to crap on the Executive department and abuse Emergency Powers. The Justices are NOT authorized to change the law simply because they agree with the president that nominated them. Even George Washington told you that. You have become a pathological liar. I never, in any way, shape, fashion or form suggested that a lower court had the final say. What I did say is that the lower courts all the way up to the United States Supreme Court were united in their interpretation of the Second Amendment in the FIRST rulings.

George Washington warned against usurpation of powers, so you sure as Hell don't have any realistic case that I twisted anything. Your accusation is not only false, but shows a great degree of arrogance and ignorance on your part.

I came to these conclusions by three decades of legal experience and watching the judicial department make a mockery of the Constitution. George W. Bush said the Constitution was nothing more than a G.D. piece of paper and the United States Supreme Court wiped their ass on it with the Heller decision. America was founded on the presupposition that there ARE unlimited Rights:

The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123)

Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation.” BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

According to Wikipedia:


"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."

(That was based upon the Right to Bear Arms whereas Nunn v. Georgia was specifically about the Second Amendment.) When it came to Rights, the earliest courts were consistent and it was acknowledged that our country was built on the premise that there are absolute, inherent, unalienable, natural, irrevocable, absolute Rights. Only in modern times with B.S. artists claiming otherwise has this country not accepted the foundational principle upon which the Republic was founded.

Although I've headed up a committee or maybe a few in think tanks, my work is what I have taken away from my own research, presented in courts and I've never lost. Does that mean that what I believe would fly in today's courts? HELL NO. But, if you study the precedents and the statements of the founders, you will find what you're selling is exactly 180 degrees opposite of what the founders fought, bled and died in order to secure.

The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government — lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” Patrick Henry

“...rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our own will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual"
— Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Isaac H. Tiffany - 1819)

"Nothing... is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824
 
Nov 2018
3,739
1,836
Inner Space
#83
Declarationism - Wikipedia

Thank you for enlightening me about this backwater and bizarre view of American jurisprudence--- declarationism.
You must feel that relentless out of context quotes somehow prove your point. And, once again you are stumbling over your own explanations.
You claim to support the Supreme Court but deny it the the most important duty that it must have -- the duty to decide on the constitutionality of law. Yet you claim other lesser courts can make such a determination. You need to get your concepts straightened out so that they are at least consistent.

For example, you assert that SCOTUS has only one job-- interpret the Constitution (this is not actually specified in the constitution, actually) and you deny that it can decide what is Constitutional. How can those two contradictory mandates exist simultaneously?
 

Similar Discussions